SWAG agenda 032818 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT market will not change and Hammersley responded it is based on no change to current recycling market and the County will do what it needs to do by balancing expenditures and revenues. Hemminger restated recycling markets are unstable and we should start at a higher rate and be prepared for a shift in the recyclables market. Lavelle agreed with Hemminger's concerns and that the changing economic landscape and we should be cautious setting the fee. Parker asked if there were any abilities to "test" this fee against decreasing recycling markets to evaluate the risk and improve our understanding of our vulnerability. Hammersley reiterated the Finance office supports this fee and that Donaldson will respond to concerns at next meeting. She will be presenting the $128 fee to the Board of Commissioner and they make the final decision. Regional Waste Management Framework Opportunities Assessment Update and Integrated Materials Management Facility (Waste Transfer Station) Preliminary Assessment — Bob Dick, Project Manager, SCS Engineers, PC Dick provided a PowerPoint presentation "Regional Planning Framework & Preliminary IMM Facility Feasibility Study" to the group. This presentation summarized efforts to date to explore options for a regional integrated materials management (IMM) facility or other joint ventures. Primary goal of the study is to identify an efficient and sustainable option for Orange County solid waste. Other jurisdictions and institutions, including the City of Durham, are included in the study.. The need for a local facility has been established and documented with TOCH and OC. Note: Regional does not mean the facility will necessarily be located in OC and no site or parcel has been identified for a facility. a) Lavelle requested several changes to the "Executive Summary Needs Assessment — Regional Integrated Materials Management Facility" report provided to the group. These were identified during the course of the meeting and SCS will make changes to the report as requested and resubmit for review. b) Parker requested the study look beyond "landfilling" and consider other options. Dick indicated primary intent of IMM facility will be to enhance recycling and provide cost- effective, efficient, aggregation and transfer with a reduction in emissions. They are considering other options, delivery to a Waste -to- Energy (WTE) facility closer to Raleigh. Jacobs wanted to know the status of the report and process. Dick responded they will make revisions to report based on today's comments and will provide an update to GW for feedback with a goal of final product by May 2017. Dick summarized the concept of a local facility that will be sensitive to siting, environmental impact, sustainability, and economic factors. Two funding options presented: 1) OC owns /operates the facility, provides initial capital costs and charges a tipping fee to customers /users; or, 2) The facility is operated as a partnership; partners share the capital costs and operating costs proportionally between the partners. There would be no tipping fees for the partners. There would be direct haul cost avoidance for partners. a) Revenues based on waste acceptance quantity and tipping fees. b) Long haul fees need to be considered. Jacobs requested that living wage being used in any calculations for costs. SWAG Priority Update — Gayle Wilson, County Solid Waste Director Suggested updates to the 9/2016 list of priorities with 3/2017 updates: • #2 at request of Hammersley revise dates and steps for concluding interlocal agreement by 7/17 (Jacobs suggested changing July to June); • #4 alter completion date and incorporate the regional plan framework;